ASEAN Ceasefire: Shielding Region from Superpowers

The July 28, 2025 ceasefire agreement between Thailand and Cambodia, brokered by Malaysia as the current Chair of ASEAN, marks a crucial step toward de-escalating tensions in mainland Southeast Asia.

The commitment to an immediate and unconditional halt to hostilities came after an emergency meeting in Putrajaya, where Malaysian Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim successfully brought both nations to the negotiating table.

With a midnight ceasefire, informal military talks set for the following morning, and a General Border Committee meeting planned for August 4 in Cambodia, the diplomatic structure laid out is sound. Yet this development should not be viewed in isolation.

It presents ASEAN with a broader test: Can the region maintain its independence and stability amid growing strategic rivalry between global powers, particularly the United States and China?

The ceasefire highlights ASEAN’s capacity to resolve intra-regional disputes through its traditional consensus-driven and non-interventionist principles. Malaysia’s leadership reflects a long-standing commitment to diplomacy over confrontation, and the quick resolution suggests that ASEAN can still provide timely responses to potential flashpoints.

However, the ceasefire also brings into focus the growing geopolitical complexity facing Southeast Asia. While the conflict itself was between two ASEAN member states, the broader strategic context defined by intensifying competition between Washington and Beijing cannot be ignored.

Southeast Asia sits at the epicentre of the Indo-Pacific, a region increasingly seen as a stage for power projection by both the United States and China. From the South China Sea to the Strait of Malacca, the region holds vital economic and strategic importance.

As a result, even local conflicts especially those involving territorial disputes can become proxies or leverage points in the larger geopolitical game. In this environment, ASEAN’s internal disputes risk being instrumentalized by outside powers unless carefully managed and transparently mediated.

That is why the exclusion of major powers like the U.S. and China from the ceasefire process, while consistent with ASEAN’s emphasis on regional autonomy, raises difficult questions.

Should external stakeholders be entirely shut out, or could their limited inclusion serve to reduce suspicion and prevent covert interference?

While ASEAN’s instinct is to shield itself from external influence, its current context demands more nuanced thinking. Rather than barring external powers entirely, ASEAN should explore mechanisms to involve them in limited, non-intrusive ways such as observers or contributors to technical and verification frameworks while maintaining full leadership over the process.

This approach is not about inviting interference but rather pre-emptively managing it. Transparency often reduces the temptation for unilateral action or clandestine support for one party over another.

Allowing both the United States and China to witness or engage in confidence-building processes under ASEAN’s terms may limit their ability to exploit divisions for strategic gain.

In effect, it turns ASEAN’s centrality from a defensive position into a proactive strategy, one that asserts regional ownership while acknowledging the realities of global power politics.

The lessons of the past are instructive. During the Cold War, Southeast Asia became a theatre for proxy conflicts. The Vietnam War, in particular, began as a national issue but quickly escalated into a brutal international conflict, drawing in both superpowers and devastating neighbouring Cambodia and Laos.

These countries suffered immensely not because of internal dynamics alone, but because global ideological rivalries hijacked local conflicts. Today, the conditions are different, but the risk of repetition remains.

With rising tensions over Taiwan, the militarization of the South China Sea, and economic competition hardening into strategic confrontation, Southeast Asia could again find itself caught in the middle.

To avoid repeating history, ASEAN must actively prevent regional conflicts from becoming footholds for external power projection. This means designing inclusive ceasefire mechanisms that guard against political exploitation while enhancing legitimacy. In the current situation between Thailand and Cambodia, the observer mission led by Malaysia offers an opening.

ASEAN could invite representatives from dialogue partners like the U.S., China, Japan, and the EU to participate as neutral observers without decision-making power under a carefully defined mandate. Their inclusion would provide reassurance to the international community, minimize backdoor involvement, and reinforce ASEAN’s credibility as a stabilizing force.

Malaysia, in particular, is well-positioned to lead this balancing act. With its history of effective mediation, strong bilateral ties across the region, and diplomatic independence, it can articulate an ASEAN vision that combines principled neutrality with strategic engagement.

As Chair, Malaysia should push for the development of a robust verification and monitoring mechanism that not only ensures compliance with the ceasefire but also incorporates early-warning tools, third-party reporting, and transparent communication with global partners.

The Putrajaya ceasefire is an opportunity for ASEAN to reaffirm its role as the centre of gravity in the Indo-Pacific. It is a reminder that peace in the region must be locally driven, but globally aware. Ignoring the presence of great powers does not eliminate their influence it only invites it to emerge in less visible, potentially more dangerous ways.

In a nutshell, ASEAN’s handling of the Thailand-Cambodia ceasefire is more than a matter of border stability; it is a test of the region’s strategic maturity.

By creating a ceasefire process that is transparent, inclusive in limited ways, and led entirely by ASEAN, the organization can protect its sovereignty while reducing the risks of becoming a battleground for global rivalry.

Malaysia’s role as Chair gives it the platform to lead with clarity, caution, and conviction. The future of Southeast Asia depends not only on ending conflicts but on ensuring they are never manipulated by powers that seek to divide rather than unite.

Kuala Lumpur.

28.07.2025

https://www.malaysiakini.com/columns/750456